Joseph S. Dueker
How Judge Dueker rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Dueker
Joseph S. Dueker is a United States magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. He joined the court in May 2023. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Richmond and a law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law.
Judge Dueker's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Dueker, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
Key rules
Filing
Print courtesy copies on one side of the paper.
“Courtesy copies must be printed on one side only.”
Discovery
Confer with the other side before filing a discovery motion and try in good faith to resolve the dispute.
“Before filing any discovery related motion, the moving party must confer with the other side and make a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute in compliance with the Court’s requirements and the Local Rules.”
Trial
File motions in limine at least 20 days before trial.
“Motions in limine must be filed at least twenty (20) days before trial.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Dueker decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a warrantless vehicle search following flight, Dueker resolves suppression on ABANDONMENT: a defendant who flees and abandons a vehicle forfeits his Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy, so the search is lawful without reaching probable cause or inevitable discovery. His abandonment analysis was adopted as consistent with controlling Eighth Circuit precedent. A suppression motion that does not confront the abandonment/flight problem is a weak posture before him.
“As Defendant himself concedes, Judge Dueker's ‘approach is consistent with how the Eighth Circuit has handled abandonment to date,’ and ‘the weight of authority is against’ Defendant's objection.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence, Doc. [31], is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Supplemental Motion to Suppress Evidence, Doc. [52], is DENIED.”
“For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Suppress be DENIED.”
“Therefore, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress be denied because the search and recovery of the ammunition in Defendant's pants pocket, as well as the search and recovery of the two (2) firearms seized from an area where Defendant had tossed them, was constitutional as a search incident to arrest.”
“In light of the foregoing, the Court recommends that the District Court deny Defendant's Affidavit of Fact Not a Motion Request and Demand Recuse Judge (ECF No. 79).”
“As a result, the Court recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute be denied.”
“Accordingly, the Court recommends that the District Court deny Defendant's Affidavit of Fact (Not a Motion) to Dismiss for Lack of Personam [sic] Jurisdiction, Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction, Improper Judgment, and Void Judgment (ECF No. 89).”
“Easley's Motion to Suppress Evidence and to Dismiss Superseding Indictment, ECF 172, is DENIED”
“Easley's Motion to Dismiss Superseding Indictment, ECF 141, is DENIED”
“Easley's Dismissal Motion for Speedy Trial Violation, ECF 149, is DENIED”
“Easley's Motion for Dismissal (Vindictive Prosecution), ECF 151, is DENIED”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [93] is SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, AND INCORPORATED herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress Evidence [62] is DENIED.”
“THE COURT ORDERS that Defendant Sturgeon Stewart's Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Defendant's Request for a Hearing Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware is GRANTED, but, as will be more fully outlined in its final Report and Recommendation relating to all pretrial motions, the Court DENIES Stewart's Request for Franks hearing.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Sturgeon Stewart's Motion for New Counsel (ECF No. 141) be DENIED.”
“After de novo review, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's order of detention and reasons as it agrees fully therewith. Accordingly, the Court will deny defendant's motion. ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion to revoke order of detention [20] is denied.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Michael Politte's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) DENIED. ... IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right and this Court will not issue a Certificate of Appealability.”
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stewart’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and Request for Franks Hearing, Doc. 68; Motion to Suppress DNA Evidence, Doc. 157; Motion to Suppress Statements, Doc. 63; Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Rules 404(b) and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Doc. 64; Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Act Materials, Doc. 69; Motion to Dismiss for Undue Delay, Doc. 66; Motion to Dismiss Count III, Doc. 67; and Motion to Dismiss Indictment on the Grounds of Vindictive Prosecution, Doc. 119; are DENIED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 86 days (N = 4).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 142 days (N = 1).
- Not systematically enumerated; judge commissioned 2023-05.
- The ~7 Dueker-assigned dockets surfaced span civil-rights (G.E.S. v. Florissant, Vasser v. Washington University), prisoner civil-rights (Parkhurst v. Centurion Medical Services), and a TCPA case (Prosser v. Medica Central Insurance), plus routine criminal magistrate duties (mj complaints/forfeiture).
- The consent civil cases observed resolved by settlement/voluntary dismissal or administrative consolidation rather than a merits ruling.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, not for Judge Dueker: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Closed with no court action | 502 | 4.3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 1,031 | 7 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 16 | 15.3 months |
| Closed during trial | 12 | 31.2 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 1,561 | 6 months |
| Sep 2024 | 1,525 | 6.6 months |
| Sep 2023 | 1,323 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 1,466 | 10.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 1,424 | 8.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 1,950 | 5.5 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,913 | 2.2 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Dueker with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Dueker, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Dueker's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace